A "briefing" is a term from advertising & PR agencies. It is a document in which the customer explains what their business context, goals and "value demand" is, at what budget etc etc.
Thanks for the link, I will look into it. I worked with use cases and user stories, but user stories will frequently have some gaps in them - and it's in those gaps that misunderstandings occur. I was hoping that there's a universal language to create bullet proof models.
I thought this might be ambitious, yes. Although at this time the system is (still) really quite simple.
Also, I thought: there must be a better way than saying: "So when user A logs in and merges records X and Y, user B will see the changes but not user C because he's not an admin".
I'd wager you just aren't being clear enough. From what you just said, I have zero context as to why user B can see those changes. I can make a guess, because he's an admin, but it's just that, a guess based on the little context you provided about user C not being an admin and being unable to see the changes.
"However, I think this market is in the wrong direction of technology. In pure software, marginal cost of a new unit is zero, while of course for each new Louis Vuitton bag or each new Rolex, there’s costs for material and craftsmanship. But projecting forward into a world with ubiquitous, sophisticated 3D printing, the value of material and craftsmanship attenuate."
What luxury goods sell (art, handmade Rolls,...) is a story, not a product. The category that looks more likely to suffer are the luxury goods that are merely almost-luxury products - industrially manufactured but high priced (I'm thinking Nespresso here). What will hurt them is the increased transparency - the cold spotlight on their industrial value chain. They will be exposed as fakes.
But what will likely thrive is everything that has nothing to hide but everything to gain from this new transparency - everything that is ugly, earthy, hand made, at the expense of sweat and blood and occasionally the lunacy of the artist or artisan. That stuff will probably become astronomically expensive.
And then, someone will figure out how to produce that semi-industrially and we can start over again ;)
I believe we're already seeing this as a valid business market in the sense that a well designed app often finds a market against the less designed more utilitarian open source competitor. I think this is in line with the "luxury" business model where designers and engineers focused on "the experience" are the new craftsmen.
Very good point, and very much validated by this story, which in my opinion borders on the silly, but isn't all that different from the breathless descriptions of the Hermès ateliers in Paris where artisans stitch 10,000 € leather bags:
I agree. These brands are story, but still have a basis on some superior quality with the end product. When the craftsmanship and material differences go to zero, it'll be interesting to see what that story will be.
As the author of the article, I share your concerns.
I asked Vesterbacka for comments when I posted the first version, but he only responded later this afternoon. (I'm now waiting for feedback from the Marketwatch/WSJ reporter where the claims originated).
If you've followed the post, you'll see that I updated it regularly in the course of the day with information from this thread, with a window of a few hours where unfortunately I couldn't update the post because the site went down.
Thanks for posting, dirtyaura (I wrote the article). Rovio is insanely good at keeping that Angry Birds brand relevant, but I do wonder whether they're too dependent on that one brand. (Armchair business strategist much, lol?)
Outside of the phone games and some pictures of merchandise from Finland, I had no idea how big their reach was. Then I saw my 5 year old Nephew recently and was covered head to toe in Angry Birds stuff, coloring a Star Wars Angry Birds coloring book surrounded by Angry Birds toys.
I asked my brother how good my nephew was at playing the games on the phone (considering my brother and his wife don't have smartphones) and he responded "they have games too?"
Sure, they are a one brand company. It is their Achilles' heel, but I think it doesn't mean that they can't continue their trajectory for a few more years. A rather comparable case of Hello Kitty has been milking billions per year since early 2000s.
Good story, however I'd like to ask if Vesterbacka made any clearer statements on what "managing revenue" means. Their 2011 filing for the Finnish officials state they made about 75 million euros in revenue (far from the $500 million cited in the article).
Does this number represent the value of the merchandise sales of the company or was he explicitly referring to the revenue of Rovio itself?
Finnish accounts show only the financials of the individual P&L rather than the "consolidated Rovio group" P&L. Unless one is provided with an organisational and shareholding structure (with corresponding financials) it is impossible to know what is and isn't accounted.
By comparison, Supercell which has the #1 top grossing app (Clash of Clans) and #4 top grossing app (Hay Day) was reported to have $15M in gross monthly revenue, which is far less than Vesterbacka's statement about Rovio, but closer in line with Rovio's Finnish filing.
Angry Birds Star Wars is currently #46.
Maybe the merchandise and licensing is where the money is at?
That's a good question. I was also surprised at the number reported by Total Telecom, which is why I asked Vesterbacka to comment via Twitter. No answer yet, though. Thanks for that link.
Disney at some point was "too dependent" on Mickey (or whatever character). It's how they handle it from here on out. They could go bust or they could become a top entertainment conglomerate.
"I do wonder whether they're too dependent on that one brand"
They'll sure milk it as much as they can. But having something that successful gives you something that most people can only dream of: a gigantic advertising opportunity for their next games.
At any point in time where they're still relevant, they can just buy any small game company making the next great game and advertize it like mad, making the next great game even more successful than what it would have be.
They could have bought, say, Riot games if they wanted: the chinese forked "only" 400 millions to buy Riot Games / Leage of Legends.
Whenever Rovio shall feel like it they'll be able to fork out an height or a nine figures to acquire the next big game.
Surely that is an almost impossible feat to pull off
1. $NEXTBIGTHING is tiny and cannot be distinguished from the noise
2. $NEXTBIGTHING is going to be the next big thing, but only a few people can realise this
3. $NEXTBIGTHING is spreading like wildfire - the owners of $NEXTBIGTHING could take 400m from you, or they could take 20m in VC and become the next rovio.
The time period between 1. and 3. is probably tiny compared to the time it takes to broker a 400M dollar deal
